3 The Furness Memorial Library Daniel Traister In memory of William E. Miller (1910-1994), Assistant Curator, Furness Memorial Library ilmarth S. Lewis, the great Horace Walpole collector, W once quipped that, if use were the criterion by which people judged the quality of libraries, we should judge that library to be the best which had the largest collection of telephone books. The Horace Howard Furness Memorial Library, now part of the Walter H. and Leonore Annenberg Rare Book and Manuscript Library at the University of Pennsylvania, has never needed to justify itself by denigrating “mere” use in favor of qual- ity and importance of collections. Over the years of its existence, it has always been among the most heavily used of Penn’s special collections (and this without even one telephone book in sight). The quality of its collections has never been in doubt, either. Its use is in part a reflection, obviously enough, of the drawing power of William Shakespeare. The Furnesses, father and son, based the collection on Shakespeare’s works and his stage and print career. Around these same topics their successors have continued to build it. The Furnesses’ chosen author has surely elicited more editions of and words about himself than any other writer in English—more, perhaps, than any other writer in the world. His continuing preeminence at all levels of education, and the popularity of Shakespearian productions on stage and screen, are evidence of an enthusiasm so widespread that it cannot be written off as merely academic. More than three hundred and fifty years after his death, Shakespeare continues to be box office. The collection’s use, then, must be at least partly a tribute to the writer with whom it is concerned. But credit must also go to the scholars and collectors who built it before passing their library to the stewardship of the University of Pennsylvania in 1931. Horace Howard Furness, Sr. (1833-1912), and his son, Horace Howard Furness, Jr. (1865-1930), collected for use and not for “envious Opposite page: Horace Howard Fur- show” (in the words of Shakespeare’s contemporary, Ben Jonson). ness, Sr., in his library at Lin- Their library, which would become one of the most remarkable denshade, Wallingford, Pennsylvania (after 1894). research and teaching resources of the University, originated in the 62 THE PENN LIBRARY COLLECTIONS AT 250 needs of their own scholarly work. The collection was intended from the start to have a research function.1 1 See, most recently, Michael D. The Furnesses and their library emerged from a tradition of Bristol, in Shakespeare’s America, study that distinguishes them from a rather different, though America’s Shakespeare (New York: Routledge, 1990), p. 65: “The concurrent, tradition of collecting, represented by such of their Shakespeare collection . [Furness near contemporaries among library builders as James Lenox, John Sr.] had in mind was to be a Carter Brown, or J. Pierpont Morgan. Furness Sr. began his collec- working library, rather than an ac- tion as a means of serving his own work on the history of the cumulation of rare objects.” Just transmission and interpretation of Shakespearian texts. The collec- about everyone else who has writ- ten about the Furness Library says tion originated in a notion of the library in service to the ends the same thing. The topic is even of private scholarship. The scholarship might be of public benefit, addressed by Furness himself, albeit but the library, unlike those formed by Lenox, Carter Brown, indirectly, in a letter of 13 Novem- or Morgan, did not at its inception envisage, even implicitly, any ber 1890 to University of Pennsyl- vania Provost William Pepper. Fur- eventual public role. ness is replying to Pepper’s query The Furness collection also reflected the tensions of an era of about “the cost of a good working massive social change. Many different people, for various reasons library of English and American Literature.” He writes: “I do not and on both sides of the Atlantic, made of Shakespeare an icon here include any fictitiously valuable around which various conceptions of Anglo-Saxon nationhood books, such as the Mazarin [i.e., might cohere. At the same time, the collection represented an at- Gutenberg] Bible or the First Folio tempt to recuperate Shakespeare from the taint (as it might have of Shakespeare, . [but] enumerate seemed in the Furnesses’ era) of the overly demotic and popular. only those classes of books, which Its scholarly aspirations simultaneously served the collectors’ own would be indispensable to the students in writing their college scholarly interests while also helping to return Shakespeare to Themes or in laying the funda- the hands of those they considered intellectually and socially mental groundwork of a sound capable of apprehending him. But perhaps the most significant English education” (The Letters of element that determined the nature of their collection was the Horace Howard Furness, ed. Horace Furnesses themselves. Howard Furness Jayne, 2 vols. [Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1912], The collection that Horace Howard Furness, Sr., began to I:264-265 [emphasis added]). create emerges directly from the broad context of Victorian ap- proaches to Shakespeare. One student of these approaches, Aron Y. Stavisky, has described Victorian Shakespearian scholarship as founded on “two principles of . [the] age: the sense of progres- sive order, and an intense moral purpose.”2 Stavisky shows how 2 Aron Y. Stavisky, Shakespeare and “habits of industry and cooperative organization affected scholarly the Victorians: Roots of Modern Criti- production” in the nineteenth century. He is quite explicit that cism (Norman: University of Okla- homa Press, 1969), p. 4. Shakespearian scholarship is not immune from these processes, which he calls “the industrialization of Shakespeare studies”3: “Most of this work was characteristically unglamorous but neces- 3 So commonplace has talk of sary, each fact adding to the mosaic of historical perspective upon “the Shakespeare industry” become which our own [twentieth] century prizes itself.”4 The Furness that it must be said explicitly that Stavisky does not mean his collection emerges from a context in which “a scientific habit and words to be taken as mere meta- a theory of methodology [were both] applied to Shakespearean phor. Compare, e.g., L. C. Knights studies.”5 Their combination produced a scholarship, as A. W. THE FURNESS MEMORIAL LIBRARY 63 Ward remarked in summarizing the contributions of nineteenth- in Explorations: Essays in Criticism century Shakespeare studies generally, “chiefly concerned with Mainly on the Literature of the Seven- the elucidation and restoration of . [Shakespeare’s] text, the teenth Century (1946; rpt. London: Chatto and Windus, 1963): In the explanation and illustration of his matter, and the history of all nineteenth century, according to that entered into or surrounded his life and literary career.”6 Knights, “Shakespeare scholarship The Furness contribution to the Victorian Shakespearian enter- progressed by accumulation rather prise was the creation of a New Variorum Shakespeare, an effort than by a process of growth or clearly akin to other “industrial” or “scientific” literary and hu- development from a centre. It be- came a heavy industry” (p. 79). manistic projects of the era. Exemplary of such projects, according Knights objects to “new co-op- to Stavisky, was the notion put forth by another Victorian Shake- erative methods” of scholarship, spearian, F. G. Fleay, who “insisted that the way to understand which he finds “depressing,” pre- what Shakespeare meant was through the exhaustive tabulation cisely because they are “industrial” products of mass sensibilities rather of what his contemporaries meant by the same or analogous than “critical” products of well- 7 terms.” Although the Furnesses did not tabulate in this manner, honed individual sensibilities. the materials they gathered would have assisted the realization of many of Fleay’s ends, as well as their own. Murray’s great effort to create the New English Dictionary (now known as the 4 Stavisky, pp. 23-24. Oxford English Dictionary, or OED), and such projects as the Dictionary of National Biography and the ninth edition of the 5 Ibid., p. 47. Encyclopaedia Britannica, all arose from similar intellectual outlooks and “industrial” scholarly work habits. The Furnesses’ variorum 6 Adolphus William Ward, A History edition of Shakespeare’s works, like those other great monuments of English Dramatic Literature to the of Victorian scholarship, is rooted in a commitment to the good Death of Queen Anne, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1899), that can emerge only from a cumulative, rational methodology. 1:569 (quoted in Stavisky, p. 48). That methodology itself is founded on the bedrock conviction that scholarship and knowledge are cumulatively augmented. OED reminds us that a “variorum, sb.” is “an edition, esp. of 7 Stavisky, p. 76. the complete works of a classical author, containing the notes of various commentators or editors. Used, chiefly attrib., to denote an edition, usu. of an author’s complete works, contain- ing variant readings from manuscripts or earlier editions.”8 Fur- 8 OED 1a-d. ness Sr. conceived his own variorum as a gathering together of what had already been discovered, thought, and said about individual acts, scenes, lines, and words; their historical and allusive backgrounds; and any other issues necessary for an understanding of the Shakespearian text. All these materials would then be printed, in excerpts and digested form, in the variorum volume, as extensive notes to the plays and poems. Its readers would be enabled to survey, at a glance, all they needed in order to grasp the difficulties of the text before their eyes. They could find the vari- ous resolutions of those difficulties already achieved or proposed by their predecessors. They might then build progressively on the labors of the past.